| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Peter Abrahamsen <rainhead@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Hi, It is great to hear that Gentoo Prefix works for you in a |
| 5 |
corporate setting! Mind if I poll you about how many workstations your |
| 6 |
distribute your Gentoo Prefix 'image' to? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> We have a prefixed Gentoo disk image here at our office that we |
| 9 |
> distribute to developers on OS X boxes so they can run full |
| 10 |
> development environments locally. It has postgresql, memcached, and |
| 11 |
> other goodies pre-installed with the right USE flags. |
| 12 |
<snip> |
| 13 |
> Neither of these issues is a huge deal, as we're happy just |
| 14 |
> distributing new images from time to time and not making our devs deal |
| 15 |
> with system management, but there've been several times when I've |
| 16 |
> wanted these flexibilities from portage. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So you want to avoid having your devs dealing with system management |
| 19 |
yet allow them to customize the install? Is that right? I imagine |
| 20 |
deploying a NFS mounted 'image' may be easier and allow the sys-admins |
| 21 |
(you) to update the prefix when you want to. However, I do know that |
| 22 |
grobian has worked on a "stage4" type install that allow you to |
| 23 |
'transplant' prefixes much like you are describing. I will let him |
| 24 |
comment on that. Sorry I am of not much help at the moment. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-Jeremy |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives